R
roothless
Guest
lolwut. No one is attacking your family bud. I find it sad that you give a damn about other people that you don’t even know getting married. Gay people get married too, get over it.
- Status
P
pilots13
Guest
Yea, I don’t buy into the gay marriage devaluates you straight marriage
- No one is forcing the Church to change their views on marriage. No one is forcing the Church to marry gays.
- What really devaluates marriage is divorce. To me, i always felt the “no gay marriage” crowd is a bit hypocritical when they argue their straight marriages will be cheapened by gays marrying, but never say 2 words about divorce.
E
Eugenius
Guest
You have completely lost me here. You talk about cost and resources being squandered. Whose cost and resources are you talking about?But this is always more expensive than the natural way - let a man and a woman hop into the sack, and nine months later, a government investment that in its lifetime will give the government thousands, if not millions, in taxes.
Better, I think, not to squander our resources on gay couples who need money just to get a child when there are so many others who already have children and need assistance in order to churn out piles of college grads.
J
John21652
Guest
For someone who identifies asa ‘Catholic’ you sure have a not-so-Catholic point of view. If you’d bothered to read through the entire thread, you’d see all the arguments which refute what you say. If you’d bothered to read what the catechism has to say on the subject, your first sentence might not have been so empty of meaning.
Your statement that the “no gay marrigae” crowd doesn’t say 2 words about divorce is patently false. There are plenty of threads on the topic. You seem not to understand that maost people here try to stay on topic and the topic is stated at the head of each thread.
O
Odell
Guest
Divorce does to my friend but I find it hard to believe you can’t connect the dots.
For one high divorce rates dosent force the Church to change her views either. The Church dosnt believe in divorce and never will. So one can say I don’t see how divorce rates really affect those who are committed for life and married into the Church.
If you can make that leap. Than you should be able to conclude that marriages that are not open to children devalues marriage. Marriages that contracept devalues marriage. Marriages that alows for multiple sexual partners (swingers) devalues marriage. Marriages that are open to poligamy devalues marriage. And gay marriage devalues marriage none of it because it requires the Church to change her views but because as you concluded about divorce is that it’s a cultural issue.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
I think you have made a signficant mistake. One that most modern folks are making. I am saying that “marriage” can be thought of as a non-religious and non-civic institution in its most basic form. In its most basic form, marriage has always been a man and woman coming together to procreate and raise the child. Let’s assume we are on an island with no religion and no government. Men would pair off with women. They would make a baby. They would raise that baby to be better versions of themselves. (Of course there will be exeptions for the dead-beats). Gay men will pair off with other gay men. But only the men and women have married. In this non-religious and non-civic look at marriage, you can think of it as akin to the human version of animal husbandry. Same sex couples on this island may very well pair off and the island members may very well love those couples all the same. But they are not engaged in marriage. This process of creating new generations by relying on their instincts to select good partners with good genetics to improve humanity from one generation to the next—the same-sex couples are not a part of that.
That right to marry is inailienable and fundamental to our existence and our progress. No government can take any of that from us without separating us from the opposite sex and deciding that human existence shall be over. Society calling “marriage” something less than a procreative union devalues “marriage” by watering down its meaning to something like, “The Ultimate Romantic Commitment Between Two People.”
There is no religious argument above. I’m not talking about Catholicism/Christianity vs. Civics or other institution making a definition of marriage. I’m saying that institutions might be doing their humans a favor by leaving the word “Marry” for when men and women pair off for the purpose of creating life for future civilizations. (What will humans 2,000 years from now call the obviously different and procreative unions to distinguish them from the Ultimate Romantic Commitment Between Two People unions? Procreative Marriages vs Non-Procreative Marriages?)
I know people get married with no intent of having kids. This is proof that the definition of Marriage has already been watered down. This watered-down viewpoint of marriage (Ultimate Romantic Commitment Between Two People) may be why you see so many divorces—these marriages are created for the happiness and self-serving motives of the two people. It doesn’t transcend their wants/feelings. It’s shallow, in societal, human evolution terms. Not shallow in lovey, other terms, so please don’t take offense.
Those of us still holding on to “Marriage” in it’s purest meaning feel that further watering-down the term will lead to further generations of being poorly informed about what marriage actually is. It’s no offense to same-sex couples. I wish you all the civic rights of other couples. I also wouldn’t mind changing the civic definition of Marriage licenses to include you, IF modern folks actually did understand that Marriage is that basic institution of continued human existence and an exception has been made for same-sex couples. But they don’t. And I don’t hear the LGBT community ever conceding that opposite sex couples have a unique union that raises human coupling to a level that’s beyond what they will have in a non-procreative union.
Also, it’s a mistake to say that the value I have in my marriage could ever be reduced because of the actions of governments or others. So legalizing gay marriage couldn’t change my feelings about my marriage. However, the value others have in my marriage will be reduced if you don’t see that my procreative relationship with my wife is a special and unique one that is essential to future generations and perhaps worth valuing greater than other human pairings that are called marriages in civic-speak. Well… I guess my union’s contribution to society has already been devalued in the minds of others, if they don’t see that it is a procreative union that is intended to create better versions of my wife and me. That’s too bad.
Make sense?
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
To really twist your noodle, marriage is in fact open to LGBT community. You can be a gay man who wants to be in a procreative union with a woman. You would need to view marriage as something beyond The Ultimate Romantic Commitment. You would need to go back to it’s real definition: a man and a woman, coming together, to pass along their traits and raise their children to be better versions of themselves.
This is totally unrealistic, because our sexuality is too powerful and humans are too flawed to be able to handle this in a healthy way, perhaps. But I just wanted to illustrate that the right to marry (in its fundamental meaning—not the lovey-dovey meaning people want it to mean) is a fundamental right of all humans, not just straight people. I don’t expect that LGBT folks should be interested in doing this. But if they were, they have every right to. In fact, if we were on that imaginary island with nothing but the LGBT community, they would need to pair off in opposite-sex couples as best they could to keep the community moving into future generations. Their kids would probably be most efficiently raised if they were raised by their biological parents who love them. Sure, adoption would be a great idea and maybe there would be nice big families of numerous adults raising the kids. I have no clue. I’m making things up.
This is why marriage is non-discriminatory, unless you throw in that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. When you define marraige as The Ultimate Romantic Commitment, you reduce it’s meaning to something for the purpose of arguing that all people can partake in it. (It’ll be a lie: you’ll just be telling yourself you have a marriage, when really you just have a very profound Romantic Commitment). When everyone agrees that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then yes, policy limiting licenses to opposite sex couples are probably wrongfully discriminatory.
But you’d have to ignore the elephant in the room: we will have no future generations if there is no procreative element to marriage, because that’s marriage’s main function.
This is totally unrealistic, because our sexuality is too powerful and humans are too flawed to be able to handle this in a healthy way, perhaps. But I just wanted to illustrate that the right to marry (in its fundamental meaning—not the lovey-dovey meaning people want it to mean) is a fundamental right of all humans, not just straight people. I don’t expect that LGBT folks should be interested in doing this. But if they were, they have every right to. In fact, if we were on that imaginary island with nothing but the LGBT community, they would need to pair off in opposite-sex couples as best they could to keep the community moving into future generations. Their kids would probably be most efficiently raised if they were raised by their biological parents who love them. Sure, adoption would be a great idea and maybe there would be nice big families of numerous adults raising the kids. I have no clue. I’m making things up.
This is why marriage is non-discriminatory, unless you throw in that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. When you define marraige as The Ultimate Romantic Commitment, you reduce it’s meaning to something for the purpose of arguing that all people can partake in it. (It’ll be a lie: you’ll just be telling yourself you have a marriage, when really you just have a very profound Romantic Commitment). When everyone agrees that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then yes, policy limiting licenses to opposite sex couples are probably wrongfully discriminatory.
But you’d have to ignore the elephant in the room: we will have no future generations if there is no procreative element to marriage, because that’s marriage’s main function.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Incredibly, the poster has offered this earlier in his post #125.
I countered with this:
In case he brings it up again, you might have a more succinct rebuttal.
,
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
This seems to be the essence of your objection and the argument made by the thread at large, accept others in the thread have been careful to give special exceptions to infertile heterosexual couples, even those who are infertile intentionally (for example, by vasectomy).
I have already concisely, yet adequately (IMHO) addressed this by saying that the government expanding – or “watering down” as you put it – the definition of marriage does not cause confusion about what Catholics consider “marriage” to mean. In other words, if the government permits a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves, people will still understand what the Catholic Church (as well as other churches and other religions) consider marriage to be.
Even if people did have a misunderstanding about what religious entities think “marriage” is, I would argue that the problem is poor education about the religions and cultures of the world.
It seems like you are implicitly making the argument here that, “Deciding not to have kids, divorces, and other shallow relationships are bad and are cause by defining marriage to include gay marriage.” This is flawed on several levels.
First, marriages in which the couple decides not to have kids can be very fulfilling marriages. It’s not as if we have an underpopulation problem in this word that has undergone unprecedented population growth in the last decade which may lead to the depletion of resources.
Also, sometimes divorce is a good thing. In one family I was acquainted with for a good portion of my childhood, the father was raping the children, but the wife who knew about this could not find a way out. For some reason, she didn’t feel that she could report her husband and didn’t feel that she had any power over the situation. One thing that was working against her was that her religious peers (I had known the family through a Catholic home-schooling social group) look down on divorce. Not surprisingly, she was a bit of a “psycho” woman who was obsessed with finding her daughter a future husband unlike hers (although we didn’t know why at the time). The point is, although a crumbling relationship that may lead to a divorce is a bad thing, sometimes divorce is a good thing. Today, I think more people are willing to divorce than stay in a terrible marriage after all attempts to fix it have changed.
One may see rising divorce rates as a sign that people are in more shallow relationships, or that people are more likely to leave bad relationships (due to less pressure to stay in them).
Aside from that, I think the problem with the above argument is the implicitly inferred cause-and-effect. There are a number of reasons why people enter into and leave relationships – even marriages.
There shouldn’t be a problem with people not understanding what the Catholic Church currently teaches about what a marriage should be if people are properly educated about the religions of the world. I say, “What the Catholic Church currently teaches about . . .],” because various religions and societies had had various notions of what “marriage” is or is supposed to be. It seems, from my perspective, that you want to have social policies created in such a way to promote your religion’s conception of what a “marriage” should be. Even if I were still a Catholic, I would not view this as an appropriate route for this cause.
If anything, this education should be done by the religious organizations (without lobbying changing social policy) and schools (when teaching, say, a comparative religions class).
This to me sounds much like someone who is against interracial marriages saying something like, “Blacks can marry, just like anyone has the right to marry people of their own race. We who against interracial marriages don’t restrict this right.” It would be obvious to anyone not sharing his views that he is restricting people’s ability to marry those who they love.
CONTINUED…
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
…CONTINUED
The definition of “marriage” has changed many times, even within your religion. Is a force marriage between a rape victim and the rapist a “marriage” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Can a sexual union between a brother and a woman known to be has half-sister be a “marriage” (Genesis 20:12)? Can a man’s union with 700 wives plus 300 concubines be a “marriage” (1 Kings 11:1-3)?
Putting aside for a moment the fact that this excludes infertile heterosexual couples…
The definition of “marriage” has changed many times, even within your religion. Is a force marriage between a rape victim and the rapist a “marriage” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Can a sexual union between a brother and a woman known to be has half-sister be a “marriage” (Genesis 20:12)? Can a man’s union with 700 wives plus 300 concubines be a “marriage” (1 Kings 11:1-3)?
Procreation can be a wonderful aspect of a marital union, however, the evidence that you presumably don’t consider marriage to be all about procreation is that you presumably are alright with permitting couples who are already known to be infertile to marry, just as long as one has a p**** and the other a v*****. That is discriminatory.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I hardly see how that qualifies as a “rebuttal”. It seemed more of your commentary on how you seem to think scientists are going to far by doing things you don’t like. It is little more than your subjective feeling about what is “depraved”, which is not a rational rebuttal.Jeremiah1278;8712046:
Incredibly, the poster has offered this earlier in his post #125.
may be a possibility in the future, so it is not biology 101 that you have to have a person with a p**** and the other a v***** in order to reproduce.
I countered with this:
In case he brings it up again, you might have a more succinct rebuttal.
,
In any case, the thing you were offering your “rebuttal” against was only meant to dispute the fact that it’s some golden rule in biology that you have to have a male and a female to reproduce in species that only naturally reproduce sexually. I would (and did) offer a much different counter to the “elephant in the room” comment:
On top of this, it is not as if we currently have an underpopulation problem.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
As I understand it, the government really only has one good reason at all to issue anything like a marriage license: to help married couples financially so they can afford to make children, who in turn add to the workforce and in turn to the tax dollars the government earns in income and sales tax, not to mention the increased production of the country which results in more resources for consumption by the nation and for trade in the world.
But what good are the economic benefits the government gives if they have to be used to get a child in the first place? You will never find a gay couple that is able to naturally conceive children. It simply is not possible. They will always need to use costly methods to artificially receive children.
Sometimes, but not nearly as often as 100%, does this happen for straight couples. But most of the time, straight couples can make children FOR FREE, and therefore the government doesn’t waste as much money when it chooses to give licenses to fertile straight couples as opposed to gay couples, because some of the benefits the government gives to gay couples will ALWAYS be used just to make children (or adopt them). It’s GUARANTEED to be more expensive or less efficient than giving marriage licenses to straight couples.
Or most likely I’m just missing something.
P
pilots13
Guest
I saw this thread when it first started and didn’t have time to make a post, and when I came back a couple days later there were 10 lengthy pages. So if I’m repeating points, I’m sorry cause I just kinda skimmed over all those pages.
I know what the catechism says about marriage. I’m just saying I don’t see how secular society allowing gay marriage cheapens my marriage. My neighbors to the south, Iowa, legalized gay marriage a couple years back. No part of my life has been affected or changed or feels devalued in any way since it passed.
And yes, the comment “doesn’t say 2 words about divorce” was incorrect. But I’m watching huge pushes from the Church on the definition of marriage, but no visible push at all to make divorce illegal in society. If divorce devalues marriage as much as homosexual marriages, then why is that movement not as loud?
For one gay marriage dosent force the Church to change her views either. The Church dosnt believe in gay marriage and never will. So one can say I don’t see how gay marriage really affect those who are committed for life and married into the Church.
And the marriages not open to children argument is the other one that drives me nuts cause of how bad it is. I have several married friends (all straight) who can’t have kids. So they can’t marry either? It would take a miracle greater than Elizabeth’s to grow ovaries back. They aren’t having kids.
I agree, things like cheating spouses, swingers, etc does devalue marriage (hell, why even get married if you want to do that stuff?) But I just don’t see how the government allowing two men or two women to get a few added legal benefits devalues my marriage and what my wife and I have between us.
Do people here have as much of an issue between “Civil Unions” instead of “Marriage?”
N
Nate13
Guest
Do you have a reason for giving them the benefits other than “straight couples get them, therefore gay couples should to!”. Could it be the problem is many people have forgotten what the purpose of many of those benefits in the first place? I’m curious to hear why you believe gay couples deserve all of the benefits straight couples get and then I will give you my opinion of why those benefits are given out. Please note I’m talking about visitation rights at the hospital here when I’m talking about benefits. The benefits in debate are more the tax incentives.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
Apologies… I don’t know how to break things up when quoting 
. . .the government expanding – or “watering down” as you put it – the definition of marriage does not cause confusion about what Catholics consider “marriage” to mean. In other words, if the government permits a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves, people will still understand what the Catholic Church (as well as other churches and other religions) consider marriage to be.
I’m not bringing religion into this. (Nor should I, because as a terribly cathecised cradle Catholic, I would do a hatchet job on expressing the Church’s teaching). I’m saying that marrying is a fundamental function of human society whether or not that society knows any religion. I agree with your comment that issueing marriage licenses to same-sex couples does nothing to change what society feels is a “Catholic Marriage” or a “Morman Marriage.” I’m not concerned that society will change how it views the Catholic vocation of marriage (other than the fact that as the secular world loses focus of what marriage is, it will eventually begin to think Catholics are way off base in limiting marriage to a man and a woman open to procreation).
***It seems like you are implicitly making the argument here that, “Deciding not to have kids, divorces, and other shallow relationships are bad and are cause by defining marriage to include gay marriage.” This is flawed on several levels.
First, marriages in which the couple decides not to have kids can be very fulfilling marriages. It’s not as if we have an underpopulation problem in this word that has undergone unprecedented population growth in the last decade which may lead to the depletion of resources.
. . .
I’m sorry I came off this way. No: I don’t think current messed up marriages have anything to do with society ratifying same-sex marriages. In fact, I shouldn’t be commenting on what causes our apparently high divorce rate — I’m no expert. I was commenting that heteros have done plenty to water-down their conception of marriage by divorcing the institution from its procreative purpose. I’m sure this has happened forever. Gov’t or Religiously recognized same-sex marriage completely separates marriage from its procreative purpose. Also, I agree that couples can lead happy lives without having children (either by choice or because they cannot).
This to me sounds much like someone who is against interracial marriages saying something like, “Blacks can marry, just like anyone has the right to marry people of their own race. We who against interracial marriages don’t restrict this right.” It would be obvious to anyone not sharing his views that he is restricting people’s ability to marry those who they love.
You may have drawn this analogy because you didn’t fully understand my position. I’m saying it’s impossible for same-sex marriages to exist because same-sex couples cannot come together to procreate, and therefore, it’s a different institution from hetero marriage sociologically/historically/anthropologically (?) speaking. To illustrate: you see how the government can restrict the right to have the marriages of both same-sex couples and interacial marriages legally recognized? I’m saying: the government cannot actually prevent interracial couples from marrying (short of killing them)—whether or not the government recognizes the marriage with a license, they are married in its most basic meaning. They have come together with the purpose of having children to populate the next generation. A justice of the peace or a clergyman is not needed. They have “married” when they have decided to come together, form kinship, and have children. Same-sex couples cannot “marry” in this sense.
To call a same-sex couple a marriage, you need to lie to yourself about what a marriage is. You need to say, “it has nothing to do with procreation.” The non-fundamental right to marriage that you are talking about (gov’t recognition, tax breaks, licenses, etc.) should be tied closely to what marriage actually is. That’s my argument. We can change the government’s definition. Various religions can have their own definitions. But you cannot change the fact that since pre-history men and women pair off to procreate and raise children to be better versions of themselves for future generations. This is special. This is different from just a life commitment to be nice to each other forever. Governments would do well to have policy making it easier for the humans to do this.
Since I live in a Democracy, I’m advocating a non-religious, moral position that my government should foster this fundamental building block of human social living by setting special rules for this fundamental sense of marriage. It would be good to remind modern humans what marriage is so that they do not enter it lightly. And it would be good for existing marriages in that the social institutions created by the society are helping the basic unit of human existance.
. . .the government expanding – or “watering down” as you put it – the definition of marriage does not cause confusion about what Catholics consider “marriage” to mean. In other words, if the government permits a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves, people will still understand what the Catholic Church (as well as other churches and other religions) consider marriage to be.
I’m not bringing religion into this. (Nor should I, because as a terribly cathecised cradle Catholic, I would do a hatchet job on expressing the Church’s teaching). I’m saying that marrying is a fundamental function of human society whether or not that society knows any religion. I agree with your comment that issueing marriage licenses to same-sex couples does nothing to change what society feels is a “Catholic Marriage” or a “Morman Marriage.” I’m not concerned that society will change how it views the Catholic vocation of marriage (other than the fact that as the secular world loses focus of what marriage is, it will eventually begin to think Catholics are way off base in limiting marriage to a man and a woman open to procreation).
***It seems like you are implicitly making the argument here that, “Deciding not to have kids, divorces, and other shallow relationships are bad and are cause by defining marriage to include gay marriage.” This is flawed on several levels.
First, marriages in which the couple decides not to have kids can be very fulfilling marriages. It’s not as if we have an underpopulation problem in this word that has undergone unprecedented population growth in the last decade which may lead to the depletion of resources.
. . .
I’m sorry I came off this way. No: I don’t think current messed up marriages have anything to do with society ratifying same-sex marriages. In fact, I shouldn’t be commenting on what causes our apparently high divorce rate — I’m no expert. I was commenting that heteros have done plenty to water-down their conception of marriage by divorcing the institution from its procreative purpose. I’m sure this has happened forever. Gov’t or Religiously recognized same-sex marriage completely separates marriage from its procreative purpose. Also, I agree that couples can lead happy lives without having children (either by choice or because they cannot).
This to me sounds much like someone who is against interracial marriages saying something like, “Blacks can marry, just like anyone has the right to marry people of their own race. We who against interracial marriages don’t restrict this right.” It would be obvious to anyone not sharing his views that he is restricting people’s ability to marry those who they love.
You may have drawn this analogy because you didn’t fully understand my position. I’m saying it’s impossible for same-sex marriages to exist because same-sex couples cannot come together to procreate, and therefore, it’s a different institution from hetero marriage sociologically/historically/anthropologically (?) speaking. To illustrate: you see how the government can restrict the right to have the marriages of both same-sex couples and interacial marriages legally recognized? I’m saying: the government cannot actually prevent interracial couples from marrying (short of killing them)—whether or not the government recognizes the marriage with a license, they are married in its most basic meaning. They have come together with the purpose of having children to populate the next generation. A justice of the peace or a clergyman is not needed. They have “married” when they have decided to come together, form kinship, and have children. Same-sex couples cannot “marry” in this sense.
To call a same-sex couple a marriage, you need to lie to yourself about what a marriage is. You need to say, “it has nothing to do with procreation.” The non-fundamental right to marriage that you are talking about (gov’t recognition, tax breaks, licenses, etc.) should be tied closely to what marriage actually is. That’s my argument. We can change the government’s definition. Various religions can have their own definitions. But you cannot change the fact that since pre-history men and women pair off to procreate and raise children to be better versions of themselves for future generations. This is special. This is different from just a life commitment to be nice to each other forever. Governments would do well to have policy making it easier for the humans to do this.
Since I live in a Democracy, I’m advocating a non-religious, moral position that my government should foster this fundamental building block of human social living by setting special rules for this fundamental sense of marriage. It would be good to remind modern humans what marriage is so that they do not enter it lightly. And it would be good for existing marriages in that the social institutions created by the society are helping the basic unit of human existance.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
TruthSeeker60,
In all honesty, I’m open to your thoughts on the issue and am really using this forum as a tool to refine how I think about it. Debate with you is helpful. So thanks. To that end… Would you say that you hold the position that opposite-sex coupling in which they are doing so primarily to procreate and form a family holds little to no value over other couplings? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once in human history, but it’s not important now? If others are saying that governments should hold special rules for this special union of humans, I’m trying to figure out if you’re saying: they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should discriminate between those couples and other couples.
I don’t intend to put words in your mouth. I’m just practicing brevity, which I’m terrible at.
In all honesty, I’m open to your thoughts on the issue and am really using this forum as a tool to refine how I think about it. Debate with you is helpful. So thanks. To that end… Would you say that you hold the position that opposite-sex coupling in which they are doing so primarily to procreate and form a family holds little to no value over other couplings? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once in human history, but it’s not important now? If others are saying that governments should hold special rules for this special union of humans, I’m trying to figure out if you’re saying: they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should discriminate between those couples and other couples.
I don’t intend to put words in your mouth. I’m just practicing brevity, which I’m terrible at.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
I don’t. But I think the Vatican has advised me that I’m wrong on that.
I’m not the only one making this error. Link explains:
lifesitenews.com/news/uks-most-important-catholic-bishop-endorses-gay-civil-unions/
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
This doesn’t really have much to do with the thread or who can marry whom, because even if making babies, as well as raising them, was a benefit to society, I wouldn’t consider either of them a requirement for marriage, regardless of whether the couple is a heterosexual couple known to be infertile or a homosexual couple.
I’m not trying to dodge this question. I’ll be happy to answer it once you acknowledge (or at least address) the fact that allowing heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile to marry, while not permitting homosexual couples to do the same, is arbitrary and without secular justification.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
I’ll assume we are talking about infertile couples where science and technology will never advance to a point where they can conceive.
Such a public policy would require all who are intending to marry to undergo testing to prove that they are fertile. That’s a very intrusive public policy and it’s one non-arbitrary reason to not care whether or not a hetero couple is fertile. Moreover, an infertile hetero marriage at the very least models or symbolizes the procreative marriage even if it’s impossible for that couple. That’s still a very powerful symbol for humanity. Moreover, moreover, infertile couples presumably enter marriage wishing they can procreate (and are therefore open to the creation of life). Perhaps praying for a miracle. In these cases, man and woman have entered marriage with the approach that it is a life creating institution, and perhaps with sadness discovered that they can’t take part in that. But they have at least approached marriage with the frame of mind that it is not simply an Ultimate Romantic Commitment.
Just because a couple is infertile, doesn’t mean that they have a marriage that is separated from marriage’s purpose for procreation. They sadly can’t partake in that, but their approach to marriage is grounded in the desire to procreate.
A same-sex couple can never approach marriage from the perspective of creating a new combined version of themselves to raise. They can seek donor sperm or adopt or hire a surrogate (similar set of options available to infertile heteros), but they can’t mirror/symbolize/model the procreative purpose of man and woman having sex, making a baby, and raising it.
So it’s not arbitrary to write public policy to draw the line at Man + Woman without checking into fertility. And the secular purpose is to preserve respect for and our collective memory that the social institution of marriage has its roots in procreative purposes. Therefore, kids, tread carefully when seeking a marriage partner, because it’s a bigger deal than you might think. Something along those lines.
O
Odell
Guest
I’m learning from you guys and both sides make good points. However I would like him to address the question now.
It’s almost like chess! Check now waiting to see his move.
- Status